knights of the sea Large ship naval battles - User Suggestions

[Querulous1 3,276]

Lets hope so, no naval battles with continual suicide planes being spawned. Does not make tankers happy, will probably not make ship players happy.

[SeraphsWrath 126]

22 hours ago, twoand900 said:

 

As I said before, normal air battles aren't going anywhere, naval battles driving force will be ships in the same way tank battles driving force is tanks.

 

Furthermore the tanks, planes and ships game mode, as stated by Gaijin, will be left for special events because it would be way to hard to balance

No, you misread what they were talking about. They said that "Tanks and ships will be left for separate special events because it would be hard to balance." Planes v. Ships is already a mechanic in the current tests (I watched it at Gamescom).

[Byebye360 875]

3 hours ago, SeraphsWrath said:

No, you misread what they were talking about. They said that "Tanks and ships will be left for separate special events because it would be hard to balance." Planes v. Ships is already a mechanic in the current tests (I watched it at Gamescom).

 

Why are you expecting planes to be the driving force in the naval forces bit you keep going on and on about aa being op for every thing bigger than a fishing boat with 2 .50s on it, for the aa to not shred every boat in game we will need at least heavy cruisers.

[Vincesportsman2 92]

 

I've got an idea on how to keep the battle moving in closer and closer and also keeping it timely. I even made a little diagram in MS paint.

 

Basically, what you're looking at is just a rough idea of a "convoy attack/defense" gamemode. On one side, you have the defenders (green) who are working to try and keep the attackers (red) from destroying their merchant/transport fleet (yellow). Much like destroying the enemy airbase in air battles, the destruction of the defenders merchant fleet will signal an automatic end to the game. The defenders must cover the merchant fleet until either they've sunk the entire enemy team, or the game timer runs out.

 

You might ask, how is this any better than just letting two teams duke it out in the open sea without anything to defend except themselves? Simple, the attacking team has a huge incentive to try and push in closer so they can strike at the enemy merchants. Whilst the defending team is doing their best to keep the attackers out of range. Also worth noting, both teams should be placed close enough together so that even the slowest vessels can reach maximum engagement range within 2-3 minutes. This would mean the both fleets should be roughly 1 mile out of eachother's maximum firing range, using the longest ranged gun on each team to determine the "maximum" firing range of each fleet. The merchants should be only a few miles behind the defending fleet, to ensure that they too can be reached in a timely manner. Ultimately what is going to happen here is the enemy fleet is going to do their best to close the gap whilst the defenders will try to widen it, this is speed up the pace of the battle as fleets get in closer and closer until either the merchants are destroyed, all enemy vessels are rendered immobile and out of the merchants range, hence unable to pursue their objective, the defenders are all sunk, or the merchants are all sunk.

 

This system is also beneficial in the regard that is does not force the battle to go until all ships on one side are totally sunk, it just forces it to go until one team is unable to complete their objective. It also incentivises players to close the range gap and hence allow for more destruction as the battle closes in. Obviously a timer will be used in order to ensure the battle does not go on too long, just like in aircraft battles.

 

You can also recreate a similar scenario without using merchents. For example, you could place AI controlled aircraft carriers on both teams, the objective being for both sides to destroy the other sides carriers. Same effect, both sides try to close in the gap and reach their objective. You could also use capital ships, like the Yamato as an objective from time to time. Switch it up and make it interesting.

 

Key:

Red - Attacking Players

Green - Defending Players

Yellow - Objective (Merchant Vessels, Transport Ships, or you could just put AI carriers on both sides.)

 

Note: Range battles in a manner to ensure long range engagement can take place within 2-3 minutes of the game starting. This idea was conceived with realistic and simulator battles in mind, I'm sure Gaijin can find a way to dumb it down for arcade.

 

[twoand900 593]

2 hours ago, Vincesportsman2 said:

snip~

 

I don't see any glaring issues with It so it gets my seal of approval

 

But I would prefer carriers to be player controlled.

[Estorm732 1,499]

On 24.09.2016 at 3:56 AM, SeraphsWrath said:

No, you misread what they were talking about. They said that "Tanks and ships will be left for separate special events because it would be hard to balance." Planes v. Ships is already a mechanic in the current tests (I watched it at Gamescom).

 

You won't be dropping torpedoes or bombs at point blank distances, that is all. Put some distance between your plane and the air defence and you won't be shredded.

 

@Vincesportsman2
I like the idea behind your mode, but one problem I see is that if the merchants are too close then the enemy can just ignore the defenders and fire upon the merchants, which won't be able to take much of a beating. But I agree that this sort of missions are the right kind of navy. Not just navy actually, it would be much more fun if the whole game adopted such scenarios instead of arena deathmatch.

[SeraphsWrath 126]

On 9/24/2016 at 0:56 AM, Byebye360 said:

 

Why are you expecting planes to be the driving force in the naval forces bit you keep going on and on about aa being op for every thing bigger than a fishing boat with 2 .50s on it, for the aa to not shred every boat in game we will need at least heavy cruisers.

No, I don't expect planes to be the driving force. I expect planes to be playable and have a tangible impact on the course of a battle.

 

Furthermore, I never said that the "aa being op for every thing bigger than a fishing boat with 2 .50s on it". Liar.

 

Next,... well, I'm sorry, you're wrong. Planes can't shred destroyers and light cruisers. Rockets are inaccurate and don't work well, machine guns and cannons miss or say, "Target undamaged," bombs have the stupid assault fuse, and torpedo-bombing is asking to be shot down, by either AAA or enemy planes. So, once again, you're wrong.

Finally, have you even tried to torpedo-bomb in realistic? I can't even get within 1km (the "optimal range for dropping torpedoes," according to WT's tooltips) without getting shredded by light cruisers, let alone heavy cruisers.

 

7 hours ago, Estorm732 said:

 

You won't be dropping torpedoes or bombs at point blank distances, that is all. Put some distance between your plane and the air defence and you won't be shredded.

According to the WT tooltip, "the optimal distance for dropping torpedoes is 1km." That being said, trying to get within 1km of a ship is asking to be shot down by either enemy planes or the ship's AAA. For your information, I tried five Realistic battles once in a Beaufighter with the torpedo equipped. I got the same map each time (mm that day was bad). Each time, I tried to sink the same ship. Each time, I got pilot- or wing-sniped 2-3 km out, or, when I dropped from 2-3 km out, the target suddenly put on a burst of hyper-speed and dodged easily.

Edited September 25, 2016 by SeraphsWrath
Whoops, sorry 'bout the red. Forgot about that.

[Estorm732 1,499]

13 minutes ago, SeraphsWrath said:

According to the WT tooltip, "the optimal distance for dropping torpedoes is 1km." That being said, trying to get within 1km of a ship is asking to be shot down by either enemy planes or the ship's AAA. For your information, I tried five Realistic battles once in a Beaufighter with the torpedo equipped. I got the same map each time (mm that day was bad). Each time, I tried to sink the same ship. Each time, I got pilot- or wing-sniped 2-3 km out, or, when I dropped from 2-3 km out, the target suddenly put on a burst of hyper-speed and dodged easily.

 

That hyper speeding is caused by misjudging the target's moving speed. Since ships are so massive, they seem to be moving slower than they actually are, especially from a distance. This is something that gives them a chance at dodging. Now I wouldn't compare AI performance to player performance, because in WT it shoots at either aimbot or storm trooper mode. But in GF, the distance an SPAA starts posing a threat to a plane is from my experience is 1.3-1.2 km at most. Further than that, it's pretty hard to hit even with AB's lead indicator, because a slight manuever of the plane is enough to dodge the shell. At this point it's going to be a matter of the AA armament of the ship, some will defend themselves better than others undoubtedly. But expecting to be able to 1v1 an Iowa or a Yamato is of course unrealistic, and I don't think a lone plane should be able to (reliably) pose a threat to such vessels. Do it with a squad and you will have better chances. 

[SeraphsWrath 126]

30 minutes ago, Estorm732 said:

 

That hyper speeding is caused by misjudging the target's moving speed. Since ships are so massive, they seem to be moving slower than they actually are, especially from a distance. This is something that gives them a chance at dodging. Now I wouldn't compare AI performance to player performance, because in WT it shoots at either aimbot or storm trooper mode. But in GF, the distance an SPAA starts posing a threat to a plane is from my experience is 1.3-1.2 km at most. Further than that, it's pretty hard to hit even with AB's lead indicator, because a slight manuever of the plane is enough to dodge the shell. At this point it's going to be a matter of the AA armament of the ship, some will defend themselves better than others undoubtedly. But expecting to be able to 1v1 an Iowa or a Yamato is of course unrealistic, and I don't think a lone plane should be able to (reliably) pose a threat to such vessels. Do it with a squad and you will have better chances. 

Admittedly, I was engaging a destroyer a few patches ago, so maybe they've tweaked this. Also, the Beaufighter is probably not the best torpedo bomber in the world.

[Vincesportsman2 92]

11 hours ago, Estorm732 said:

 

@Vincesportsman2
I like the idea behind your mode, but one problem I see is that if the merchants are too close then the enemy can just ignore the defenders and fire upon the merchants, which won't be able to take much of a beating. But I agree that this sort of missions are the right kind of navy. Not just navy actually, it would be much more fun if the whole game adopted such scenarios instead of arena deathmatch.

 

Of course, I agree 100%. It would all need to be ranged in a way to allow a decent time gap before the attacking fleet even has the chance to fire upon the merchents. I just used the diagram to give an idea of what I'm trying to get at here, for a basic concept.

[Heliosiah 4,718]

It's a good idea. It's similar to the Destination game mode I proposed in chp 1 a while ago. The benefit is that it produces complex game play, and can be manipulated multiple ways to get certain results.

 

this was an image for visualization

Spoiler

 

 

Edited September 26, 2016 by Heliosiah

[Iprinz 737]

On September 22, 2016 at 8:15 PM, SeraphsWrath said:

So, essentially, you think that WT should completely reverse the meta so that ship players can have large ships. That's not gonna happen.

 

It all depends on what we include at low tiers. Keep in mind, with some of the rapid-firing casemate guns, it would be possible to snipe planes out of the air with your main guns. And, scoff though you (plural) may, I've done it with Tigers, Panthers, Jagdpanzers, M4s, and even a Stug! You don't have to be a dedicated AA vehicle to kill planes.

And that's not all bombers, either. What about the B-17? The B-29? Just because they don't carry torpedoes doesn't mean that they can't be ripped apart by high-altitude flak shells, especially with bomber spawns at their current level.

 

Also remember that WT only has 5 tiers. Where are you going to put the Cleveland? It can't go up against even New Yorks, with the WT damage system (it only can in WoWS thanks to the magic healthbar and magic fires)!

 

1: No, myself, along with almost every single person (who disagrees with Gaijin's decision) I've read posts from on the forums have all said they like the idea of small ships as well, but they want large ships too. Also, the meta of this game is pretty terrible anyways, so if it has to change to make ships (no need to say large, what Gaijin decided to add aren't ships at all) I'm completely fine with it.

 

I don't know why you would resort to arguing like a teenager who just got grounded. I'm not your dad.

 

2: Casemate guns have two things, heavily restricted firing arcs, and terrible traverse speed. Just because a gun is fast firing does not mean it can be effectively used as AAA. The times when you shoot down planes in tanks, are when the plane is being stupid. There is simply no reason to be shot down by anything that isn't meant to shoot you down. We have all been dumb before, but that doesn't mean tanks shouldn't be in the game.

 

3: Bombers like that were never designed with the goal of dropping bombs on maneuvering ships. Read: battle of Midway.

 

And nor were they designed to attack individual tanks, another example of where the metagame has failed bombers, and their targets.

 

4: I don't know, maybe a higher tier than the New York, why does this matter? There are plenty of beyond messed up BRs in the game already, the fact is, there will be some bad tier judgements.

There are 5 tiers, and 25 BRs in the game, it's not as simple as you put it, and there are a lot more variable than just how the Cleveland would handle damage, how about, the ability of the Cleveland to protect carriers and battleships from attacking groups of destroyers? You act like your questions have us all stumped, when they are often quite simple.

 

I don't see why any of your points don't apply to the game already. None of them are special to ships. In fact, this is a greater indictment of the way the game is already played than an example as to why ships shouldn't be added.

[Sov8302 3]

So far I am excited on hearing that the Dev team is introducing the Sea version to the game so far I am just seeing gunboats well ok if they want to add gunboats but I am mostly interested and I am hoping they will be adding larger ships Submarines, Destroyers, Cruisers includes light cruisers and heavy cruisers, Carriers so we can launch planes and maybe control one of the planes, lastly Battleships. These ships have been used in War.  I really do hope they add those trees for each nation by add these ships will compete with World of Warships which is a big success with naval warfare games. Once Gajin adds these ships their will be another navel warfare game out and will compete with the other game company. So I have hopes for War Thunder to have fun ships to play as long I can play a cruiser battleship or even a submarine.

[Protoboy17 327]

For now, the 'Convoy' mode was confirmed for the official CBT this year.

[Heliosiah 4,718]

I just wanted to snap a small update regarding the first two main observations I've made in regards to current play status of Naval Forces. This is not a suggestions per se, but two bullet points

 

The first is 

• The action of actually killing a boat. Not that the mechanic of killing a boat is broken, either for the boat itself or for the rounds damaging it; but that some sort of user-feedback, granular, sustained, and or instant feedback; for the user to better understand what it is he is doing to his target. One point I have seen some players make is in the regard that they can sit there and shoot a ship, but they're just spraying over it, killing members, starting fires, from stern to bow until they finally get a kill. Now again I will reiterate I am not saying that this mechanic should be changed, what I am saying is that players require what we call in the Game Design industry as Competency, a psychological factor important in prolonged game use, more important than inherent 'fun'. One way to obtain player perceived competency, as Ubisoft demonstrates, is through the use of increase user feedback and interface. 

The second is

• A discussion regarding the function of the physical waves on ships and on game play. This is not a simple thing to build. On one hand, waters too still promote simply holding down the trigger constant. On the other hand waters too choppy increase frustration as the player cannot fire when they want, but when the waves allow them, but this does add a layer of complexity to the combat that is not entirely unwelcome. Each of these scenarios also promote different styles of player movement, stationary guns or high levels of movement. So which is the best course of action; or is there further a better solution to the issue, much like there are multiple styles of maps for tanks, and multiple versions of those maps themselves that promote different player movements within the map, maybe a way to simulate multiple versions of each Naval map is to simulate weather, (an idea also observed by Wargaming) meaning that a map in calm weather will promote still waters and bad weather heavier waters as an example. 

[Iprinz 737]

5 hours ago, Heliosiah said:

I just wanted to snap a small update regarding the first two main observations I've made in regards to current play status of Naval Forces. This is not a suggestions per se, but two bullet points

 

You should go to the CBT forum with that. I seriously doubt anyone is listening here, though that is not OP's fault.

[PL_Andrev 7,375]

8 hours ago, Iprinz said:

You should go to the CBT forum with that. I seriously doubt anyone is listening here, though that is not OP's fault.

 

He has no access to CBT forum.

It is just observation based on youtube experience.

[Iprinz 737]

6 hours ago, PL_Andrev said:

 

He has no access to CBT forum.

It is just observation based on youtube experience.

Forgot to check his titles.

 

That is yet another example of broken things that Gaijin does. How many people that wanted larger ships bought these packs? There is already a system in place to stop people from making irrelevant comments without excluding the vast majority of even paying players who want to affect change.

[Solid_Snake01 974]

 

[Iprinz 737]

Wait what now?

 

EDIT: Dude, you need to add context, that title is very confusing. The video is about this particular youtuber no longer supporting the naval development of WT for anybody wondering.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Iprinz

[Solid_Snake01 974]

On 1/29/2017 at 8:48 PM, Iprinz said:

Wait what now?

 

EDIT: Dude, you need to add context, that title is very confusing. The video is about this particular youtuber no longer supporting the naval development of WT for anybody wondering.

 

Thats the point he no longer supports Gaijins Naval forces because Gaijin is playing the yes and no game confusing everyone by having Mods says one answer then the Devs says a different answer and the youtuber's contact final word is no capital ships and making excuses so they don't put capital ship in the game and i agree with the youtuber i only had interest in capital ships not boat forces so since the final word is no all capital ship players like me will be happy to see boat forces fail.

[Teovo 163]

On 30/01/2017 at 0:59 AM, Solid_Snake01 said:

 

Pretty much just half a hour of moaning about how Tigerfrost isn't getting what he wants.

 

The 'contact' who tells him stuff, is it a mod, a dev? If you're not willing to divulge who's giving you the inside story why take it as absolute fact.

 

As for 'supporting development', if it's just doing what we're all doing (pre-CBT) then commenting on it it's not really support, it's just playing the game and then sharing an opinion. It's nothing special, it's what we're all doing.

 

And yes naval ATM does have bugs, it's still early days and that's why there's a forum section for reporting and giving an opinion. As for the torpedo 'problem' in the video, as far as I know torpedo's have an arming distance, that's why they don't sink his target at point blank range but contact with one (later in the video) sinks his boat.

 

Again this is just my own opinion, I'm not a Gaijin fanboy, I just get irritated when people start calling others stupid and lazy because they're not getting what they hoped for right now.

[PL_Andrev 7,375]

On 23.09.2016 at 2:13 PM, Querulous1 said:

Lets hope so, no naval battles with continual suicide planes being spawned. Does not make tankers happy, will probably not make ship players happy.

 

HOPE they are working how to fix that.

The simpliest solution: pay for repair. Maybe at the next mayor patch...

[Iprinz 737]

Instead of making it rewarding NOT to immediately ram tanks and boats, why is everyone suggesting that they make it even harder for anyone to enjoy planes? You can't even fly them every match, if you get killed by a one shot at the beginning, you are shut out. How about some actual game design with targets that anti air have to actually protect that are quite rewarding for all plane types?

[RedCap6947 14]

The point of all games is to be able to play them with some kind of fair combat and have fun??? get the Ships or boats working correctly in the game first

games don't really do any thing but give large companies lots of money? so make the Ships or boats go at relative speeds for a start? and hits with nbig shells ??

Bang crash wollop  its a game for fun not a tec exersize?get real